page 153 reposting

Quote :

"Brad's birthday is on 10/7. If you could, please send him a birthday card. I'm sure it would brighten his day. Bradley G. Cooper DOC # 1264179 1300 Western Boulevard Raleigh, NC 27606"

we should send him a TWW birthday card!

9/28/2012 10:12:17 AM

whoa, wish I joined this site during the trial. I too watched with some people at work and was also very upset at the state of our "justice" system. I hope all those cary women are ashamed of themselves and that the dude that was all sketchy on the stand (and may be the father of one of the children which means he may have a motive) gets fucked by karma if he did it.

9/28/2012 10:17:27 AM

I imagine he'd rather have a get out of jail free card.

9/28/2012 11:25:52 AM

we should send him nudes. I'm posing as we speak

9/28/2012 11:27:51 AM

k, who's gonna send him this?

9/28/2012 11:53:53 AM

http://www.kurtzandblum.com/criminal-defense-attorneys/cooper-appeal-defense-brief

here's the defense's appeal brief for anyone interested in reading it. i haven't had a chance to look at it yet.

11/6/2012 9:07:45 AM

Quote :

" To respond to the State’s claim that Brad Cooper did a Google Map search focused on the site where Nancy’s body was found on the day before she went missing, the defense planned to offer evidence that Brad’s computer had been tampered with, that the Google Map files on his computer had been inserted by someone else. The defense gave notice to the State that it planned to offer expert testimony from Jay Ward on this matter. He had been professionally employed for 18 years in computer network security. When the defense case started on Tuesday, 19 April, Jay Ward was the first witness to be called. The trial court granted the state’s motion for a voir dire on his qualifications outside the presence of the jury. At the end of that voir dire, the trial court ruled that Ward’s testimony would be limited to computer network security, but granted the State’s motion to bar him from testifying about the analysis he did concerning the files extracted from Brad Cooper’s computer on the issue of whether there was evidence that the Google Map files were the result of tampering. (Tpp. 6909-7017) After that ruling, the defense immediately began looking for an expert whose job description was computer forensic examiner to fill in the major hole in the defense case when the trial court ruled that Jay Ward could not give testimony about tampering on Brad Cooper’s laptop computer. First thing Thursday morning, the defense gave notice they were adding Giovanni Masucci to their witness list, a forensic examiner they located Wednesday night, to examine the data that the FBI extracted from Brad Cooper’s computer. (Rp. 474, Tpp. 7363-67) The defense sent his CV to the prosecutor on Friday (a day when court was not in session), and his report on Saturday. (Tp. 7600) Masucci’s report (D EX 154)[2] said that he examined the data that Jay Ward extracted from Brad Cooper’s laptop computer and the data that the FBI extracted from it. The two sets of data matched. The data obtained by Ward was verifiable. He endorsed all of the conclusions reached by Ward in his report given to the State prior to trial. He attached a copy of Ward’s report, redlining a few things about which he had no personal knowledge. He reported his conclusion that the Google Map files in the temporary internet folders on Brad Cooper’s computer were not created as the result of an organic and genuine internet search from that computer, that they were files placed on that computer from some other source. When Court resumed on Monday, 25 April, the defense planned to call Masucci to testify. The State objected, claiming that the defense had violated the discovery statutes because Masucci’s name was not on the defense witness list and the State had not been provided with his report prior to trial. The defense argued that the discovery statutes were not violated because they only called for names and reports of witnesses that the defense intended to call at trial. Prior to the ruling barring Jay Ward from testifying about tampering, the defense had no intent to call Masucci as an expert. The defense provided notice and a report as soon as was possible after that ruling. The defense argued that precluding testimony from a defense witness as a sanction was permissible only when the failure to disclose was done in bad faith. (Tpp. 7599-7621) The trial judge granted the State’s motion, excluding testimony from Masucci, ruling that the defense had violated the discovery statutes. The trial court found that allowing the testimony would prejudice the State. The trial court made no mention of the effect of the ruling on the defense’s ability to present its evidence and made no mention or consideration of any alternatives short of exclusion. The defense objected that the ruling violated the Defendant’s state and federal constitutional rights. (Tpp. 7621-7624; App. 1-4) The trial court delayed the defense offer of proof from Masucci until Thursday afternoon. At the end of that offer of proof, the defense asked the trial court to reconsider the ruling barring testimony from Masucci. The trial court denied that motion. (Tpp. 8300-8306) The trial court’s ruling excluding testimony from Giovanni Masucci was error that requires reversal of the conviction and a remand for a new trial. There was no violation of the discovery statutes. Even if there had been, excluding this critical defense evidence rather than adopting some less onerous sanction deprived Defendant Brad Cooper of his constitutional rights to confront the State’s case and offer evidence in his defense."

Jay Ward was drhavoc right? gosh it's been awhile since I read through this thread

11/6/2012 9:24:36 AM

yeah, that was him.

11/6/2012 11:02:46 AM

all i remember about this is that whether he did it or not, there was virtually no evidence with which to find him guilty...but he was found guilty nonetheless

like, laughably little "evidence"

11/6/2012 11:04:27 AM

^^ that whole situation is fucked up. The way jay was treated and the was the judge made his ruling. Totally fucked up!!

11/6/2012 11:07:03 AM

it was even worse than just being no evidence, they never even offered plausible a story of what happened. After their original stories were discredited, they just gave up even trying to explain how it might have happened, they never offered a possible chain of events.

11/6/2012 11:08:44 AM

Quote :

"He reported his conclusion that the Google Map files in the temporary internet folders on Brad Cooper’s computer were not created as the result of an organic and genuine internet search from that computer, that they were files placed on that computer from some other source."

11/6/2012 11:22:31 AM

worst conviction ever.

11/7/2012 10:41:06 PM

Just thinking about this thread makes me angry. I'm not opening it against until he's a free man.

11/8/2012 1:58:11 AM

bump to undermine Netstorm goal

11/13/2012 2:11:39 PM

I fully support undermining Netstorm.

11/13/2012 2:15:46 PM

Vanity search. Goal broken.

12/22/2012 1:17:31 AM

??

12/22/2012 7:04:35 AM

damn that's just some fucked up shit. Still makes me angry that shit went down like that.

12/22/2012 9:10:55 AM

State responds to Brad Cooper appeal
Feb 28, 2013 4:47 p.m.


Raleigh, N.C.—The state of North Carolina says a Superior Court judge ruled properly in the high-profile murder trial of a Cary man convicted nearly two years ago of killing his wife.

In a 48-page brief filed this month with the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the state Attorney General's Office said the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it came to three rulings regarding testimony about a laptop computer on which investigators found evidence they say linked Brad Cooper to the July 12, 2008, death of his wife, Nancy Cooper.

2/28/2013 4:52:52 PM

what

the

fuck

2/28/2013 6:18:58 PM

oh my God...that's some bullshit

2/28/2013 6:26:05 PM

when do we find out how the court feels about it

2/28/2013 7:33:20 PM

^^rosemary would be out raged.

i was talking about this trial with some people. i got pretty angry recounting most of it.

3/15/2013 7:51:55 PM

NC appeals court to hear Brad Cooper case next month
Mar 19, 2013 4:03 p.m.


Raleigh, N.C.—The North Carolina Court of Appeals has scheduled oral arguments for April 9 in the case of a Cary man serving life in prison for killing his wife.

Brad Cooper, 39, was found guilty in May 2011 of first-degree murder in the July 2008 death of 34-year-old Nancy Cooper, whose body was found in a drainage ditch in a cul-de-sac of an undeveloped subdivision near their Cary home.

The appeal for a new trial focuses on two rulings that a Wake County Superior Court judge made regarding testimony during the trial. Investigators found evidence on a laptop computer of a Google Maps search the day before Nancy Cooper disappeared of the location where her body was later found.

Defense attorneys wanted to call two witnesses to support their claim that the computer had been hacked and that the information about the map search had been planted onto the machine. The judge ruled that neither witness could testify.

A third ruling by the judge denied defense attorneys access to FBI procedures regarding forensic computer examinations.

The North Carolina Attorney General's Office said in a brief last month that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it came to the three rulings and that any error was "harmless" because of an "overwhelming" amount of circumstantial evidence in the case.

The trial was one of the longest non-capital murder trials in Wake County history, lasting 36 days.

Witnesses testified that the Coopers, who moved to Cary from Canada, were in the process of separating and that Nancy Cooper wanted to move back to Canada with their two young children but that her husband had become controlling of the family finances and, at one point, had taken one of the children's passports to keep her from leaving with them.

Defense attorneys argued that Nancy Cooper went jogging on the morning of her death and never returned home. They claimed that Cary police's work on the case was "inept" and that investigators never pursued other leads because they were concerned that a random murder in Cary would be harmful to the town's reputation.

Web Editor: Kelly Gardner

3/20/2013 2:03:03 PM

What circumstantial evidence was not refuted? The jurors decided the case based on the google search, some of them said so.

3/20/2013 2:56:22 PM

I remember listening to this caseas it played out, it pissed me off then and it still pisses me off now. I'm not saying the guy's innocent, but he should never have been convicted on the parade of bullshit and rumormongering that was paraded on the stand.

Also, some (if not all) of those jurors had no business being involved in that case.

3/20/2013 3:29:49 PM

I still say that we need a special court for cases that are based heavily on technology in the same way that we have a special court for financial-based cases. That judge had no basis to make the decisions that he did.

3/20/2013 3:33:31 PM

I dont know if he is innocent or guilty...

but the fact that he wasnt given a fair and unbiased trial is what pissed me off the most.

I was there in court a few days and the utter lack of decency I witnessed from the prosecution and its witnesses was enough to make anyone go

3/20/2013 4:37:29 PM

think about all the people with public defenders, and all the people who don't even get assigned a public defender because the public defenders office has no money!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/opinion/gideons-muted-trumpet.html?_r=0
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202592023918&Gideon_at__A_Muted_Trumpet&slreturn=20130220164425
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/too-many-still-wait-hear-gideons-trumpet

you have no right to counsel or a speedy trial

3/20/2013 4:45:10 PM

http://justiceforbradcooper.wordpress.com/2013/03/25/my-response-to-the-states-appeal-brief/

3/25/2013 2:28:13 PM

Quote :

"Defense attorneys wanted to call two witnesses to support their claim that the computer had been hacked and that the information about the map search had been planted onto the machine. The judge ruled that neither witness could testify."

So the murderer hacked the computer then murdered her? Yah, sure.

3/25/2013 3:46:57 PM

Yea. Good grief. It's done. He's fuckin done.

3/25/2013 3:48:25 PM

if i rmember right..... (someone please correct me)

i think the implication was that cary police planted the google maps search to help make the case. they suspected him, but needed a smoking gun.

reasons that were brought up during the portions when the jury was out...
-temporary internet files icon packs for mouse overs didnt match what google actually used.
-the time that the body dump site was in frame was on order of seconds, suggesting that it was a brief pan over.
-other improprieties in the handling of the data set

the judge dismissed the ability to present this evidence based on the fact that the network security expert was not a computer forensics expert and thus did not know how to use a computer. the computer forensics expert, massucci, was willing to sign his name to the network expert after comparing the FBI data set and his data set to verify that the network guy didnt screw the pooch. also he agreed with the findings, but did not offer anything new.

These items were particularly interesting, to me, as they were offered in rebuttal to a smoking gun. (the other smoking gun was his knowledge of how to spoof a call despite not being able to prove he did spoof said call). instead of the state calling a rebuttal expert witness to discredit these claims (hey, maybe they really are bullshit), the courts merely wiped this report away like it never happened, instead of having the state address the concerns.

THAT is my problem with this case. they didnt let this testimony in, and they didnt force the state to address the testimony.

lastly, they played a portion of a deposition that was out of context, and was not to be admitted. it was damning. when i was watching, and heard the first portion, i thought oh shit that looks bad... meanwhile there was an innocuous explanation. both the statement and explanation were to be skipped. instead the statement was played for the jury and was "stricken". This same thing happened to roger clemens during his trial, and he was granted an immediate mistrial...

tl;dr... i dont know if he did it, but the guy wasnt given a fair shake.

3/25/2013 6:36:11 PM

^thats right for the most part. there were also the time stamps for the google search were after the murder had taken place. Maybe even after she was found. The implication in the maps was that he searched for a place to dump her, however, with the stamps developing after the fact, that explanation falls apart.

I also think simply stating that someone could spoof a call without having to prove that he did is a horrible precedent. Sure, I could make a pipe bomb but I would hate to be convicted of an explosion without them proving that I actually did it.

3/25/2013 9:20:43 PM

95%+ of google files were faked per the experts

3/25/2013 9:31:38 PM

Quote :

"The North Carolina Attorney General's Office said in a brief last month that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it came to the three rulings and that any error was "harmless" because of an "overwhelming" amount of circumstantial evidence in the case."

What "overwhelming" circumstantial evidence was this? The faked google maps search? The ducks? The gossiping housewives that took plenty of time to all get their stories straight? The "straw" that the officer magically remembered, but failed to take pictures of? The time he went the wrong way out of Harris Teeter (but didn't)? Ooooh, maybe it's the fact that he knew how to fake a phone call, while not having any of the necessary equipment to do so, right?

3/25/2013 10:50:41 PM

don't forget the cell phone the police wiped or the lost cell records after the defense asked the police to request the full, detailed cell phone logs before the time limit

3/25/2013 11:14:21 PM

clearly he knew how to wipe a cell-phone that was out of his control. he already has his company wipe his cell phone after he was terminated!

3/25/2013 11:16:17 PM

don't forget the router at the bottom of a lake somehwere.

3/26/2013 7:48:57 AM

Raleigh, N.C.—The North Carolina Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments Tuesday morning in the high-profile case of a Cary man serving life in prison for strangling his wife and dumping her body in an unfinished housing development nearly five years ago.

4/9/2013 7:13:41 AM

so many heads in asses regarding this case

4/9/2013 8:27:39 AM

ah, thanks puck it. in addition to not paying a ton of a attention to this case, I've pretty much forgotten most/all of the details I did know.

4/9/2013 9:10:09 AM

http://www.wral.com/news/video/12318661/#/vid12318661

if you wanna watch/listen

well nevermind...the sound isn't working

[Edited on April 9, 2013 at 9:38 AM. Reason : e]

4/9/2013 9:37:43 AM

Nothings working.


They should have rosemary make the judges some cookies

4/9/2013 10:21:49 AM

the video stops working COMPLETELY after 36 minutes.

WTF

WRAL sucks so hard.

4/9/2013 11:46:32 AM

Seemed like the board was asking pretty direct questions of the State regarding the experience of computer experts and Mr. Ward and the State was fumbling their answers so WRAL cut the footage to keep the truth from going out to the masses

/conspiracy theory

4/9/2013 1:00:32 PM

http://justiceforbradcooper.wordpress.com/

I found this interesting

Quote :

"The Cary police did not have to hire the FBI to investigate the computer. They could have used their own forensic experts OR they could have used the State Bureau of Investigation OR they could have hired a private firm. They chose the only option that allowed them to avoid sharing discovery … on the only evidence that implicated Brad."

Reminds me of the NSA and other national events. Classified status can be used as a legal "sword" to prevent access, basically denying anyone else the ability to have a part in the investigation.

6/12/2013 3:43:56 PM

It's no surprise they used the FBI for that very purpose. Otherwise, that evidence would have been disputed and dismantled just like the rest of their claims... Remember the ducks?

6/12/2013 11:20:27 PM

This is a fun case:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/crime/fl-phone-records-fisa-broward-20130612,0,5434900.story

A guy wants the records in the NSA database for his criminal defense... and they probably have them. Even though Google deleted the records in Brad Cooper's case because of their data deletion policy, our government probably still has it on their servers.

How can you keep data for the purposes of bringing national threats to justice, but yet deny that justice to other cases?

6/13/2013 1:33:46 PM